01-06-10-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

inspection it appeared that approximately four to six of the fence post footings encroached over the property line by V2 to 1 inch, and that dirt from the digging of the fence holes had accumulated along the rear property line and encroached as well, in some areas up to a foot. (Attachment B). At that time Staff discussed the issue and agreed that the dirt, and any other damage to the Schneider's property, needed to be remedied and the lawn returned to its original condition. Those portions of the fence post footings that encroached over the property line also needed to be removed so that no encroachment existed. The City verbally informed Mrs. Schneider of the Staff's position on September 15, 2009. Staff also verbally informed Mrs. Maloney and sent a letter on the same day. On the morning of September 17, 2009, Staff received calls from both Mr. and Mrs. Schneider informing us that construction had once again commenced on the Maloney" s fence and that the height of the fence exceeded six feet. They also stated that the finished side of the fence did not face their property, but rather the Maloney's. They requested that Staff conduct a site inspection on the fence as soon as possible. Staff spoke with Mr. and Mrs. Maloney and the person constructing the fence and visited the property that afternoon. After a visual inspection of the construction method of the fence Staff became satisfied that the fence would look the same on both sides when it was completed. Additionally, Staff determined that the height of the fence panels did not exceed six feet and that the fence panels were placed as near to the ground as was possible given the natural undulation of the topography. On September 18, 2009, Mr. and Mrs. Schneider requested that the Community Development Director and the City Administrator visit the site to determine if the fence met the requirements of the Zoning Code. The Building Official also accompanied them on the visit. The Building Official determined that the fence materials were of a high quality cedar and that both sides of the fence panels were constructed of rough sawn cedar boards. At that visit, Staff determined that there was no discernable difference between the two sides of the fence such that one side could be determined to be the front versus the back. Additionally, Staff concurred with the earlier interpretation that the height of the fence panels did not exceed six feet and that they were placed as near to grade as possible. This was in keeping with how the Zoning Code has been implemented in the past. Staff also noted that the portions of the footings that had encroached over the property line had been removed and the dirt raked back onto the Maloney's property. Staff did note on this visit three boards facing the Schneider's yard that had some sort of a stain on them. Staff asked the contractor to replace these three boards and he agreed. There is some slight natural variation in the wood color, but all of the boards will turn to a gray color over time. All of the fence boards have a "rough cut" finish on both sides, but there are no treatments to either side of the wood. Staff informed Mr. and Mrs. Schneider of the appeal process and deadlines for submitting application materials. On December 4, 2009, Staff received a request from Mrs. Schneider to view the fence once again in its completed state. On December 107 2009, James Lehnhoff, Dave City of Arden Hills City Council Meeting for Januafy 6, 2010 11111etro-inet.uslajdenhills OanningOannina Cases 12009W9-024 Schneider Appeal (Pending)i01-10-09- PCReport SchneiderAppeal.doc Page 2 of 5